Best Muscle Car for Beginner

In reply to Coldsnap:

That Maverick is really nice! I highly doubt the mileage, it's likely rolled over once (so 137K). No info on the engine + an auto on the column = it's an I-6 and I know you're looking for a V8.

Yeah, that's not a muscle car. It's cool, but when you get right down to it that's a well-styled '70s econobox.

Margie

Here's a nice, cheap Omega 2-door 350 that would be good to learn body/paint on.

I still think this $3K Ventura with fresh paint is a killer deal. Probably the best of all the ones we've posted.

Here's a $3500 73 Nova from awhile ago that may still be available.

In reply to Coldsnap:

It does look good, but that front end isn't a '74. '74 was a big bumper car like the one below, so it was either converted or it's not a '74. It does have five lug wheels, which normally would indicate a V-8, but since the front end is changed who knows? Worth calling and finding out.

Gotcha. It is raining / going to freeze here in Raleigh.. so all my test drives are postponed ; ;

Kinda neat.

1970 Pontiac Lemans Sport - $4500 (Riverdale) http://atlanta.craigslist.org/sat/cto/3509940137.html

that's pretty damn cool

I'm talking to this guy:

http://charlotte.craigslist.org/cto/3548481656.html

Guess it is pretty much like a nova. I might be able to slide in at $2,500 for a poor mans nova with a fresh paint.

Coldsnap wrote: I'm talking to this guy: http://charlotte.craigslist.org/cto/3548481656.html Guess it is pretty much like a nova. I might be able to slide in at $2,500 for a poor mans nova with a fresh paint.

That seems like a pretty good deal assuming the underside isn't crusty. There is plenty of aftermarket love for it as well.

I think it looks better without the grill in it...

Would this car be pretty fast?

'72 cutlass 350 rocket http://charlotte.craigslist.org/cto/3543747267.html

The '71 Ventura from a few posts above (http://charlotte.craigslist.org/cto/3548481656.html )...I like that one. Those wheels/tires would cost you a pretty penny new and they're not chump change to buy used.

Looks like it's been kept after enough to not be a complete mess. Owner seems to be taking some measure of pride in it.

When I see cars like this I see a car that might not have the best body or interior...but might have the benefit of having stuff like the brakes and exhaust and such all recently looked-after.

I love his tag line, "Almost a nova" at the end of his ad text.

Coldsnap wrote: Would this car be pretty fast? '72 cutlass 350 rocket http://charlotte.craigslist.org/cto/3543747267.html

It could be made pretty fast. But it's not going to be "fast" in stock form. Getting it to breathe (induction/exhaust/cam maybe) would help it out. But these A bodies weren't exactly light, if I remember correctly.

Furthermore...you could put a lower rearend gear in it and it'll get quicker from a stoplight (at the expense of highway cruising ability) if you just want it to feel quick.

Everything I've said above applies to pretty much EVER car that you'd be looking at that is stock-ish.

Clem

Between the '71 Ventura and the '72 Cutlass...I'd get more excited about the '71 Ventura.

It's lighter, has a cheaper engine installed (thus "devaluing" the car a bit...which means YOU don't have to cause that hit) and the engine that's in it is cheaper to modify/maintain/replace/rebuild if you want.

Sitting is hard on a car. That cutlass...if it's done a lot of sitting is going to be due for, possibly (and not inclusive): Tires, Brakes (hoses, master cylinder, hard lines, calipers/wheel cylinders), Cooling system reuild (hoses, radiator, heater core, water pump), battery, the list goes on. Not saying it's a bad car...but it looks like it has potential to be more project than driver.

It's all hard to tell from CL descriptions and photos, though...

Clem

In reply to Coldsnap:

To the average person it would feel fast because that engine makes a good amount of torque.

bravenrace wrote: In reply to Coldsnap: To the average person it would feel fast because that engine makes a good amount of torque.

Yep, it'd feel faster than another 71 cutlass with a stock 350sbc dropped in......torque is the figure that matters, horsepower is just a calculation of efficiency

You are looking at this game all wrong.

Forget the silly "I'm gonna buy a car for a few grand, fix it up and make a nice car out of it over five years"

Go to the bank, borrow 25-30k and go buy a nice Mustang or Camaro or Chevelle or any other mainstream COLLECTIBLE nostalgia car that somebody else restored about five years ago.

Drive that car for the same five years you were going to pour money into the project NON-COLLETIBLE car (What the heck is a "starter" muscle car?)

Now, assuming you took care of your car and did not crash it, you can sell that car for pretty much what you paid for it after 5 years. Total cost to own car for 5 years will be cost of interest for the loan and whatever wax and water you burned up keeping it pretty. Your "Starter" muscle car, after purchase, upgrades and selling for less than you have into it after five years, will have cost you much more, and provided a less classy ride.

If you just want to build a low buck hot-rod and don't care about exit strategy, then forget what I just said.

I still think he should look at that 49 Chevy coupe I posted a few pages back. 455 Pontiac in a '49.....garage kept since its restoration.

bravenrace wrote: In reply to Coldsnap: To the average person it would feel fast because that engine makes a good amount of torque.

I do agree with this.

In reply to NOHOME:

Well, a "starter" muscle car can be many things. Either a popular model in a lower trim grade and/or smaller motor (think 67 Tempest or LeMans, 69 Mustang 302, etc), an early-muscle or full-size car (62 Catalina), a later-model or full-size (73 Challenger, 70 Monte Carlo), or an off-brand (Rambler, AMC, Buick, Olds, Mercury, etc). They can also be a "more-door" or wagon version of the popular cars that can be built into a clone/tribute (think Olds 442 Vista Cruiser).

These cars are very popular because the "traditional" muscle (64-72/74 mid-size, big-engine) cars are out of the price point of an average person, even in deplorable condition. There is nothing wrong with this type of car, and indeed you'll probably make money on it if you do want to "invest". These cars either have the same (or better) performance than the more mainstream cars, or can be built up very easily and cheaply.

Why pay through the nose (in the OP's case) for a 70 Nova when you can have a nearly-identical Omega, Ventura, or Apollo? Or why pay for a 70 when a 73 looks nearly the same?

Not to mention people are so "jaded" at the typical muscle car that the "starter" cars are often more popular at local cruises, shows, etc. How many red 69 Camaros are there, anyway?

Ya I want something that is half E36 M3ty. Part of the fun

I still vote classic truck.

Gasoline wrote: Kinda neat. 1970 Pontiac Lemans Sport - $4500 (Riverdale)

I like that.

I am a bit late to the party, but I am in Raleigh, too.

I recently saw this:

http://raleigh.craigslist.org/cto/3524018604.html

Hell, I'd buy that myself. My father in law has a 360 just sitting in his shed.

Also, if you're willing to stretch a bit, I'd say notchback '79 Mustang.